The people’s relationship with our government may have taken on a dramatic new twist if the assertions of a few news reports this week are true.
On Wednesday The Gateway Pundit blog reported a bombshell: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange intimated that a recently murdered Democratic National Committee staffer may have leaked sensitive, troubling emails to him rather than the Russians, and then paid for it with his life.
There’s just one problem with that: Rich was just shot and killed; he wasn’t robbed. When police arrived, they found that he still had all of his money, his phone and other valuables on him.
“If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,” his father told reporters.
It is here where the plot thickens, so to speak.
Shortly after Rich’s murder, Redditors and other social media users claimed there were following some leads that may have indicated he may have been heading to the FBI with damning information about the Clinton crime family. At this point, though, that is conjecture and unconfirmed, but Rich does have a connection to the Clintons, and that is here.
But there’s more. Assange seems to intimate during an interview with a Swiss news program [alsohere] that Rich was the source of the DNC link and that he may have been killed for it.
From the video:
Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?
Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.
If Assange is saying what he appears to be saying, then Rich is a casualty of a government – well,one party of government, anyway – that has decided it must hold onto power at any cost.
Even if that means killing opposition.
Assange even says so in his interview. If you watch the entire clip, after the statement above the interviewer presses Assange on his very clear suggestion that Rich was a) a source; and b) that he was probably killed because he was a source. Assange dodges, but does say this:
“…[W]e have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States, and that our sources are….you know, our sources face serious risks, and they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.”
How high the stakes are? It’s just another presidential election – isn’t it? Part of that “peaceful transition of power” that the political pundits in Washington often tout?
The ascension of Donald J. Trump to the head of the Republican Party, his ability to survive the most ruthless, one-sided media assault on a candidate since Ronald Reagan, and his pledges to throw a big, fat monkey wrench into the global order – combined with his staying power in the polls – is scaring the establishment so badly it now seeks the ultimate punishment for what it views as an unforgiveable betrayal.
This is a new level of danger Americans now face from their own government: A political party so averse to relinquishing power that no tactic is off-limits.
If he wins, here’s hoping Trump has a tight, highly faithful inner circle. And maybe a food-taster.